How were attitudes towards homosexuals in the medieval period/Dark Ages?
>>453628
Fair
>>453628
Some feudal states would not permit marriage
>>453645
And by that he means punishable by death.
>>453893
So he's cloested?
>>453896
Probably yes. It's called reaction formation.
>>453893
Death by burning normally too.
>>453628
>homosexuals
A 19th century medical conception of sexual practices as inherent in people.
>in the medieval period/Dark Ages
Commonly believed to have ended by the 15th and 11th centuries respectively.
19 - 15 = a problem.
Perhaps you meant buggers, sodomites and the like?
>>454184
>autism
>>454184
Is it true that bugger comes from bulgar ?
>>453628
Edward II of England is a fascinating example of this. He was very close with certain men and one in particular who was taken apart literally by the Duke of Lancaster.
Edward in his turn was starved to death.
>>454184
alright then, if you want to be difficult
>How were attitudes towards samesex relationships in the medieval period/Dark Ages?
>>453628
Fuck who you fuck, but you need to marry and have at least one son to further your line/honor your family.
That's really how it's been for most of history.
>>454262
what about the more affectionate side of relationships? were there any PDAs or would that have been a taboo?
>>454262
Reminds me of the Crusader Kings game, or rather, the 4 daughters and one gay son simulator.
I've sometimes wondered if there were large pockets of, say, rural societies, where people just had no clue that was even a thing.
>>454313
When I played MTW, I always used to marry my princes to my princesses to keep the bloodline pure. Never once got found out. Then you couldn't do that in MTWII, oh well.
Does post-Constantine Rome count as late antiquity? Because I'd be willing to bet that Christian-majority Rome was a lot less lax about the boipussy.
>>454184
The word still means same sex, dipshit.
Your semantics are retarded, and don't make sense.
>>454693
>I don't care about how words are used
Good job. Consider work in a STEM field.
>>454699
Not him, but given that word usage evolves, this is a charge that could just as easily be laid at your door. The other guy wasn't referring to 19th century sexology, was he? So why bring it up, just because of the word's origins there?
>>454715
Because Foucault pretty clearly demonstrated that contemporary conceptions of the homosexual are rooted in the 19th century understanding of "medical normal," and the term is still loaded with that genealogy?
Because OP's use of the term implies the anarchronistic projection of current conceptions of "homosexuality" including medical normality/abnormality and the rights bearing enlightenment individual into a period of time where neither of these existed?
Because it is more than just semantics, but about cultural and theoretical incommensurability?
Because this is the second thread in a week where an obviously homosexual poster has tried to universalise their own experience as part of a political project to advance their version of normal as a universal one within a rights discourse, a kind of revolutionary homosexual nationalism if you've read enough about Enlightenment politics and norms to follow me?
Because the only thing more detestable than this project's impact on good historiography is the continued project of political heterosexual universality's impact on good historiography?
Because I detest poor historiography and according to the sticky we can expect a high level of discourse?
Because I actually like the history of bumfucking, man on man action, poofters soddomites and buggers, mollies, passing ladies, homophiles, homosexuals, gays and queers and seeing such a weak fucking series of questions, always identical in nature, pisses me off?
>>454822
>Because I actually like the history of bumfucking, man on man action, poofters soddomites and buggers, mollies, passing ladies, homophiles, homosexuals, gays and queers and seeing such a weak fucking series of questions, always identical in nature, pisses me off?
Then why don't you actually answer the question properly instead of posting snarky faggot responses?
>>454849
If I were a historian of late antiquity and the medieval I would.
>>454867
Because it is still a shit house fucking question. Most of Europe was local peasant cultures, and largely illiterate. We only know of these when they were policed, rather than in their normality. Some of the bishop's ordinances in the late "dark" ages indicate that hot sweaty man on man or man on boy action was pretty common, common enough to repeatedly remonstrance against. We also know that the Italian cities of the later medieval era had similar issues.
But we also know from the period when peasant modes of life were encountering literacy that a lot goes on at night in bed, and in the fields, and that generally people don't get arrested for sodomy unless you think you can steal their land. So we don't really have a great idea of whether communities put up with some cocksucking or bumfondling, or whether men were tolerated forming a household as long as they also reproduced children for property inheritance, or whether sodomites were habitually murdered. And we can't know. We can't ever really know.
>>454822
>the term is still loaded with that genealogy?
Essentialist claptrap. Foucault can go die of AIDS, oh wait.
>Because OP's use of the term implies the anarchronistic projection
Speaking of projection, you inferring something is not the same as its being implied.
>because of a whole load of other bullshit that doesn't even follow the form of something relevant
Yeah, gonna go ahead and just start ignoring you now.
Let's continue discussing how homosexuals were treated throughout history, everyone else.
>>454912
>We only know of these when they were policed, rather than in their normality.
Being policed is normality, outside of an abstracted ideal whose practice quite likely died out before civilisation. The state of nature? We live in it, bro.
>>454822
op here
>an obviously homosexual poster has tried to universalise their own experience as part of a political project to advance their version of normal as a universal one within a rights discourse, a kind of revolutionary homosexual nationalism if you've read enough about Enlightenment politics and norms to follow me?
slow the fuck down mate
in no way was my OP politically loaded. im just curious about it - you seem to be projecting pretty hard here
calm down
>>454184
i believe you mean buggerer
not bugger, bugger is the verb
>>455037
Nah, 'bugger' as a slang noun for a gay dude used to be fairly common. Lord Arran, who wanted to decriminalise homosexuality and ban hunting, is said to have quipped " "All I want is to stop people buggering badgers, and to stop people badgering buggers".
>>454822
>>454931
>you inferring something is not the same as its being implied.
>le auter
I hate to say this but you need to read Hayden White or a lot of theology. Personally I'd recommend the theology. Your concept of what a text is and how the reader relates to the text is frankly laughable.
>>454943
Thanks for the correction, but the poster above would have an apoplexy if he understood why and how you've corrected me.
>>454969
>in no way was my OP politically loaded
Your ute's bumper was scraping the fucking ground. It isn't /pol/ shit, largely because you're ignorant of what you're doing, but fuck me mate your anachronism sickens me.
>>455037
Bugger's a noun here in en_AU
>>455136
Yeah, it was a super good call to start ignoring you. I'll get right on that.
There's a big difference between a homosexual and a sodomite, just like there's a difference between pedophiles and child molesters. Homosexuality is just attraction why sodomy is the act. The attraction itself was never punished, simply for the reason that it's pretty hard to prove if you don't act on it. What was punished were the acts of sodomy.
>>455128
I'm thinking about Bakunin you a cake for that one.
>mfw I see these threads in /his/
>>454316
It's definitely conceivable that there could have been a tiny, isolated village where no-one had any firsthand experience of homosexuality, but it's very unlikely that no one would have even thought about it.
>>455217
Oh I didn't mean to suggest there wouldn't have been any gay people there.
As I think about it more, probably not, or very rarely, at least, would there have been something like that. Homophobic slurs are reasonably universal, aren't they? Hard to suppose that sprung up out of nowhere, easier to imagine they were just rarely recorded.
Renaissance historian here. We have to keep in mind that the term "homosexuality" has only really existed in the modern age and the Renaissance at least, had very little semblance of modern "homosexual" identity.
Instead, things ran on a more gender binary male/female line. The practice of sodomy was quite prevalent but the partakers in this action were not consider strict homosexuals. Instead it matter on how they acted during sodomy. A sodomite who was the active fucker and "doer" was considered more acceptable than the passive female receiver. In fact, you may think the receiver of a blow job to be the dominant partner but in the Renaissance, the one who gave the blow job was the dominant because he was the active male participant.
Sodomy was so prevalent in Florence that, in 1432, the city had to set up the "Office of the Night" to convict sodomites. In a city of just 40,000, 17,000 men were brought before the tribunal in just 70 years. This is because in these times, 12% of the population were eligible bachelors by 30 and were still keen to have relations with, typically, younger passive boys.
So homosexuality was not as clearly defined as we see it today, nor did it have a clear identity. Sodomy existed but things were more centred on gender roles and the performance of these roles.
>>455151
kek, well done
>>455268
>A sodomite who was the active fucker and "doer" was considered more acceptable than the passive female receiver.
I've heard that this is common still among less developed societies. I'm not sure if it's genuinely reflective or conscious aping of that pattern, but you might remember a plotline from The Sopranos, where one of Tony's capos is clandestinely gay. They spy on him for proof, and note that he's "Catcher, not pitcher" in a way that makes it seem as though that's significant to them.
>>455151
You bash me for Foucault, and then make a Foucauldian argument. GJ.
>>455280
Yeah, very true. I wouldn't put it down to being "less developed", but it certainly is a trend in those areas of the world. In these places, performance of gender instantly trumps the grouping of both participants as "homosexuals". So typically the male who is acting like a female is ridiculed and abused for acting unmanly.
>>455283
No, you come in yelling about Foucault when everybody else rightly gives no fucks and then you end up getting your Foucauldian shit fixed for you by one of the non-fuck-givers.
That's a tough one to spin, my antipodean friend.
>>455293
I'm sorry you got your shit pushed in about anachronism and gay nationalism.
>>453885
Quite the understatement.
>tfw no /his/ bf
>>453885
>some
Top kek
go back to your liberal arts prof.
>>453628
None. Homosexuals did not exist until the 19th century, and homosexuality as we know it a purely Western phenomenon.
If you're wondering about attitudes toward men who had sex with men, it really varied. Sodomy was a sin, but happened quite regularly and was treated by the church on a case-by-case basis. The current consensus is that sodomy was seen as equivalent to wrath or gluttony. It was wrong to have sex with your bro, but it didn't mean you were necessarily going to Hell.
Sodomy was incredibly prevalent in certain parts of Southern Europe, where the Greco-Roman tradition of pederasty was still practiced in a less institutionalized form. In fact, there are actually some references to Clerical pederasty in high medieval Europe during this time.
>>454235
>he claims to be rigorous, without being so
typical libturd
>>457783
H-hi
Please be from London
>>454822
THIS
The fundamental problem with this presentism is that homosexuality today is predicated on the belief that the homosexual does NOT have sex with women.
In the pre-modern era, all men who had sex with men would be expected to bang girls as well.
>>459694
But there's plenty of transgender muslim women, in Iran and Pakistan for instance. They're mentioned in hadith as having lived in either Mecca or Medina, and Muhammad said they should be left alone as long as they don't try to make money out of their condition.
I don't get the "gay" epithet though - does that mean he's a, well, transsexual lesbian? Or what?
